The House is presided over by the Speaker of the White-house, and the Senate by the vice president.
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
Citizens cannot make most economic decisions. Citizens can only work in factories or on farms. ... The government allows citizens to own private businesses.
Pleasing.. Winning.. attractive..
Enslaved people should be freed and returned to Africa.
All enslaved people should be freed immediately.
The Second Great Awakening began around 1800, again among Presbyterians, in the Cane Ridge, Kentucky. In addition to being more vast and complex, this awakening differed from the first in other important aspects. If the previous revival was essentially limited to Presbyterians and congregations, it reached all denominations, especially Baptists and Methodists, who grew rapidly and became the largest Protestant groups in North America. Another difference was geographic and social: while the first awakening occurred in urban areas close to the coast, the second erupted in the so-called "border," the rural region of the midwest with its mobile population and its unstable social organization.
A third difference between the two revivals concerns their theology. While the 18th century movement had a solidly Calvinistic base, with its emphasis on human inability and God's sovereign initiative, the Second Awakening revealed a distinctly Arminian orientation, giving great emphasis to the human being's choice and decision potential. This characteristic, which combined with the young nation's ideals of freedom and individual initiative, found its most eloquent expression in the revivalist Charles G. Finney (1792-1875). Finney believed that the revival could be produced through the use of techniques, called "new measures", which included insistent and emotionally charged appeals, personal advice from the determined and prolonged series of evangelistic meetings. These elements are still present today in a considerable part of world evangelicalism.
Answer:
Explanation:
The problem is they don't. One day you will take a history class that talks about Hiroshima or the Holocaust. They were both tragedies of a kind that is almost impossible to record with no bias.
But what would happen if you read the history from another point of view. Suppose, which I don't think has been done in any school in North America, you were to read about Hiroshima from the point of view of the Japanese. What have they said about it? What will they teach their children? What is the folklore about it from their point of view? Undoubtedly their best historians will record it without bias, but will be the same as what we read? I'm not entirely sure.
That does not answer your question, but I have grave doubts that it is possible. Personal bias always comes into everything. I will say this about your question: we must do our best to present the facts in an unbiased manner. That's important because we need to have a true picture of what happened. Many times it is because historians don't want humanity committing the same errors as the events they are trying to make sense of.
So far we have not dropped an atomic weapon on anyone else. But there have been holocausts after the European one. What have we learned? That six million is a number beyond our understanding, and we have not grasped the enormity of the crime, bias or no bias.
